[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Jim-
I really wasn't trying to twist or contort anything, and I'm sorry you see everything as a tactic. That's why I said you seem like a scared conspiracy theorist. As far as the legal similarities between gay marriages and black/white marriages, this article was in the paper the other day, and I thought it was interesting.

Once again, this is an attempt to link same-sex demands for special rights for homosexuals (to redefine marriage) with the civil rights movement that was an effort to give African-Americans their full constitutional rights, denied for centuries, and in the process, help others, including women, claim their full rights under the law. Those were true 'civil rights' movements. The same-sex 'marriage' movement is simply a legally unjustified demand for 'special rights' for one small group of people who chose to be defined by their sexuality. Blacks do not have the option of choosing their skin pigmentation but there is no genetic proof of homosexuality being innate and until it can be scientifically proven that homosexuality is truly innate and immutable, those who call for a drastic change in the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex 'couples' are simply demanding special treatment they do not deserve.

Homosexuals have all the legal benefits of society they claim to want and need, including the right to share medical and insurance benefits via new laws, power of attorney, wills and such. They now seek to reach the final step and force 'normalization' of a deviant sexual behavior on a hetrosexual society by having the law changed to recognize same-sex 'marriage' as co-equal to hetrosexual marriage. They call it a 'civil rights' issue to gain sympathy and gather hetrosexual supporters who believe supporting gay 'marriage' is so 'compassionate' and 'fair'. The advocates figure: how does this hurt me? It's a freebie. They can appear to be compassionate at no cost to them whatsoever. Tempting then, to become an advocate for same-sex marriage and burnish your sensitivity credentials in the process.

The sad fact remains that once you knock down a pillar of society such as the definition of marriage it will rapidly become corrupted by having any number of 'consenting adults' demanding they too, be legally allowed to 'marry'. The authorities will have no choice but to grant the demands because the definition of marriage will have been permanently altered. It will then mean whatever we want it to mean and thus be rendered meaning-less. In other nations where this has been tried, the marriage rate drops considerably. Co-habitation and children with permanently absent fathers abound because men and women have little incentive to legally 'marry' when the term itself has become empty and can include polygamists, relatives and of course, homosexuals. None of this is good for a stable society based on families.

Legalization of same-sex 'marriage' is a foolish and ultimately destructive concept that flies in the face of human biology and common sense. It bears no relation to the drive for 'civil rights' once fought by African-Americans who were denied a multitude of human rights because they were dark skinned - and for no other reason. African-Americans qualify - then and now - for marriage no matter what the race of the person they chose to marry because marriage only requires a man and a women, regardless of race. Segregrationists successful attempts to preclude blacks and whites from marriage were simply that: segregationist, with no basis in natural law or biology. Homosexuals do not qualify under this perfectly logical and time-tested definition (marriage requires a male and a female) that no culture has ever seriously questioned because it's simply a recognition of who we are and how we are made.

Emotional appeals to 'fairness' and against so-called 'discrimination' along with attempts to disparage the motives of those, like me, opposed to this unjustified demand for recognization of same-sex marriage with ridicule, questioning of my intelligence or trying to place the opposition to same-sex marriage on religious concepts the same-sex marriage advocate has long rejected, personally, are typical but remain devoid of intellectual honesty. I believe that championing same-sex marriage, while well-intentioned by most, is defending the indefensible and calling it a 'civil rights issue' is a total mischaracterization of the issue which amounts to a demand for special 'rights' by those who believe that calling rejections of their demands 'discrimination' will make their demands acceptable. That doesn't work for me or a majority of Americans and calling us names and trying to ridicule our motives won't help any, either, no matter who does it.

I think we've all enjoyed an interesting, informative discussion and I believe both sides of the issue have been debated fully here. I have little to add and no wish to engage in a drawn-out battle of internet stamina as to who can keep posting the longest (and saying the same things, different ways). So, I'll leave the thread at this point, confident that I've been fully heard on the issue and presented the 'other side' of gay 'marriage'to the best of my ability so I leave the thread to you, Chris, or anyone else who wishes to continue the discussion, for whatever it's worth. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss it. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.

I wish you the best.